June 10, 2005 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No.

The House met at 10:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Before we begin the Routine Proceedings this morning, the Speaker wishes to

note that, due to the unavailability of satellite time, the proceedings today

will not be broadcast in realtime beyond 11:30 a.m. We regret any inconvenience

this may cause to our television listeners. We also wish to advise that any

proceedings not broadcast today will be broadcast on Monday, June 13, beginning

at 2:00 p.m.

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Premier. Mr. Speaker,

section 7 of the FPI Act

currently ensures that all, or substantially all, of FPI cannot be sold. This

section of the act protects the interest of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and

ensures that the company has a strong and continued presence in our Province. If

this

section of the act is amended later today and FPI is permitted to sell 40

per cent of their Value Added Marketing Division in the United States, there

appears to be no requirement for the company to come back and ask for any

further permission to sell the remaining 60 per cent of that division.

I ask the Premier: Doesn't this amount to selling off all, or substantially

all, of the assets of FPI, as your legal opinion by Stikeman Elliott suggested,

and doesn't this conflict with the FPI Act that is currently in place?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. Leader of the Opposition for that question. First of all, I

think if you read the Stikeman Elliott opinion, it indicates just the opposite.

It indicates that there is a concern here and the reason we got a couple of

opinions involved in this was that, technically, FPI could possibly have gone

ahead and done this all by themselves without coming to government. I would be

of the opinion, looking at it initially, that they could not possibly do this

transaction with

section 7 in place. When we got our legal opinion from Stikeman

Elliott, it indicated no, that it is quite possible they could do it. FPI also

had an opinion that said they could do it. Then we went and got a third opinion

to make sure that we are correct in this, because it was a huge issue, and that

opinion - I do not have the wording right in front of me - says that there was a

strong argument that they could be prevented from doing it. So, part of the

issue here is they could have gone out and done this on their own. Again, I am

not here to defend the company. That is not what this is all about. This is

about striking a balance and finally getting a solution for these communities

and for the people of the Province. So, they possibly could have done it on

their own.

In answer to the second part of your question, quite frankly, is that once we

open the door here, the door is open and we make no bones about it. The minister

and several others, when they have gotten up and spoken here, have indicated and

I have indicated to you yesterday during Question Period, we cannot close all

the loopholes in this. You cannot keep all the doors closed and allow FPI to

proceed with the Income Trust and have a successful execution of that Income

Trust. So, the members of this House and the people of the Province need to

understand that all the gaps are not closed here. Even when we get control of

the Board of Directors, as the dilution of the company happens that control can

dilute. Even those directors who are there, who are acting on behalf of FPI,

they have a fiduciary duty to act on behalf of the Income Trust that they

represent. So even then that control can go.

When I speak later on today I will be indicating that, and I can say it right

now, is that everything is not covered off here. So, yes, there could be a

dilution. In fact, the legal opinions on this, which even causes some

difficulty, are equivocal on it and that is why it is before this House, because

there is no simple black or white answer when it comes to that. We have to weigh

the pros and the cons here and decide what is in the best interest of the people

of the Province and the communities who, a lot of them, are represented here

today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That does not give me any more confidence in the ownership of FPI and the

people of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, in 2000 John Risley and others wanted to purchase the majority

of shares in FPI. However, the only way that this could be done was by amending

the legislation, the FPI Act in this Legislature. Our government, the government

of the day and the Opposition who are now on that side of the floor, refused to

make any amendments because of the uncertainty this would bring to FPI in terms

of its long-term presence in the Province.

I ask the Premier, by amending the act today or tonight, could this permit

Mr. Risley and company to achieve through the backdoor what they could not

achieve through the front door just a few short years ago?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Risley - contrary to what people might say, I am

not a close friend of Mr. Risley. I do not have an acquaintance with Mr. Risley.

The only time I have ever met with Mr. Risley is in the boardroom here in this

particular building. If he was in a room somewhere where I was at some time, it

was without my knowledge. So, there is no connection here between myself and Mr.

Risley. Mr. Risley is a businessperson. He is going to try and achieve through

the backdoor what he cannot get through the front door because he is in the

business of making profit and increasing his company. So, that is the harsh

reality we have to face here everybody. I mean, I think we all know that. We

know what we are dealing with here. No different than - I was in business. Mr.

Ches Penney is in business. People are there to make profit but they do it in a

proper way, and if he can achieve that through a certain mechanism then he is

going to try and do that.

The problem that we are faced with, in this government, is that we have a

company that tells us - and from what we can see in the public sector is that

this company is strangling. Right now it cannot raise any more money, the debt

is too high. They cannot go out through normal recourse and raise money. They

are saying that the only way they can raise it is through an Income Trust.

Now, if we stop the Income Trust, then where are we Monday morning? We are

back again to a company that no longer has any ability to raise money. Then what

is the company going to do? Is it going to say to Bonavista: Sorry, we cannot do

anything in Bonavista. Is it going to say to Fortune: Sorry, we cannot do

anything in Fortune. Is it going to say to Harbour Breton: We are not going to

give you anything. We had some stuff on the table and we are starting to stack

it up and hopefully we will have more improvements to announce today for the

people of the Province, but we are not there yet.

The bottom line at the end of all of that is that we could be back to a

company that is strangled, that is closing down operations all over the place.

I am being a little long, but, honestly, I really think it is important. I am

trying to lay out for you here - that is what this process is all about, to get

all of the facts out for everybody, and that is what I am trying to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Although the Chair is allowing some greater flexibility in these exchanges,

the Chair operates on the assumption that there are more questions than there is

going to be time to ask in Question Period, so I ask the people posing

questions, and the people who are answering questions, to keep their questions

and their answers relatively short.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier, I am more concerned about what ownership and what

control this Province is going to have with FPI at the end of the day. From what

I have seen, we are going to have very little.

Mr. Speaker, if the ownership restriction is removed from this legislation,

which these amendments could ultimately achieve, wouldn't this, in essence, be

destroying the strength of the FPI Act as we know it, leaving the Province with

little or no control over the company's future activities and business

decisions - decisions that may not be in the best interests of Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: We can either leave the Act as it is and control a

company that is going to die, or we can change the Act and dilute control,

because we will not have the same control, and provide this company an

opportunity to grow and allow it to invest in the communities in this Province.

That is quite simply the choice we have.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Premier, I think you will not dilute control. We will not have any control

left if we do this.

Mr. Speaker, the only punitive action and power that the government has under

this proposal, should FPI break their promise, is to take control of the company's

groundfish quotas.

I ask the Premier: Isn't it true that the provincial government cannot take

these quotas without the consent of the federal Minister of Fisheries? If so,

has he discussed this issue with Minister Regan and secured the commitment from

the federal government that they will indeed hand over FPI's groundfish quotas

if the company defaults on their promises?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, yes, we have had discussions with Minister Regan on this matter

as far back, I guess, as about a month or so ago, when negotiations really

reached a heightened level - I will put it that way - and it appeared that we

may end up getting to a point where we might be here today.

I spoke with Minister Regan, gave him the context of where the discussions

were at that point, what we hoped to achieve at the end of the day, and informed

him that should we get to that point we will back to him looking for a

commitment and a binding arrangement from him, something that will bind his

successors and honour the agreement between the Province and FPI.

Yesterday, or the day before, I cannot remember when it was now, I sent a

letter to Minister Regan informing him of where we were at this point, and again

reminding him of the discussion that we had back a month or a month-and-a-half

ago, and asking him to reply in the manner that I have just laid out.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I asked a question yesterday of the Premier, which was answered by the

Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, concerning the security provisions that

are in this agreement. Quite frankly, we got a wishy-washy non-answer to it.

This is an opportunity in Question Period for us to hopefully get some answers

for the people of this Province.

I ask again: Did this government, whoever was over there and was a part of

this negotiating team, ever ask FPI to put on the table, as part of the security

package, their shellfish quotas and their dragger fleet as security, to prove

that they will, in case they default, give that to government as security, in

addition to the groundfish allocations that they have already committed?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we asked FPI for whatever security was available and could be

raised. The hon. gentleman opposite understands better than anyone that a

company that is hugely in debt has to mortgage its assets. If there are vessels

that are being built, then there is security on these vessels.

The quotas have been put up as security. The company is highly leveraged; so,

quite frankly, we did not expect to get any quotas coming out of the gate on

this. For a company that is a public company, that has shareholders, to be able

to agree to a default on quotas at the end of the day is a significant gain for

this Province. Let's make no bones about it. To get them to give up hundreds

of millions of dollars of quota - the hon. member shakes his head, and I

understand. I understand that. This is not an antagonistic exercise. You are

shaking your head and saying, why couldn't we get more?

We got whatever we could get out of that company. Quite simply, if it is not

enough for me, and it is not enough for the members on this side of the House,

and it is not enough for the members on that side of the House, we vote this

down.

That is what this process is all about. I am not defending it. I am here to

say I am one of you, we are all here together. We all have a free vote and we

are going to decide on balance what is good, what is bad, and what is ugly.

There are parts of this that I do not like. When this first came into our

office, the first thing that we did was say: No way, Jose, this is not going to

happen.

That is exactly what we said, and that is what we did. We shut it down. We

sent a letter out within two months, to June -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, according to what we are here debating this special session, we

are going to have further commitments negotiated. We do not know what is

happening with Harbour Breton. We do not know what is happening, if anything,

with regard to the federal Minister of Fisheries agreeing to the quotas being

put up as security.

What I am saying, and asking the Premier again is: How can we pass this here?

Will there be an opportunity for this House and the members and the public, once

the final binding agreements are negotiated - because right now you can drive a

Mack Truck through any piece of this - will there be an opportunity for us to

come back, as members, once we see the final wording, to discuss whether it is

or is not sufficient to the people of this Province? Because we do not know

right now. We do not have any commitments from the federal minister, or anything

for Harbour Breton. There is a whole pile of things here that are not on this

table. Will we get an opportunity to see it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When this first came to us back in April, fourteen months ago, my first

reaction was, no. What I see here is an Income Trust; it is an opportunity for

the shareholders of this company to bleed out the profits, take them and run.

That was my very first reaction.

The first question I asked the company was: What does the union think, and

what do the communities want? Assuming, quite frankly, that they were going to

come back and say: The union says, we don't want this. The communities are

going to come back and say, we don't want this. That would have been the end

of it. What happened was, the union came back and the communities came back and

said: We do want this.

So, as Premier of this Province and as the government of this Province, we

said, we have to look at this. Therefore, we have to go from where we are, which

is zero, to where we are today, which is fourteen months later. That is why we

have put it before this House, and that is why we have put it forth in a free

vote, and that is why we have not made up our minds. Some of us made up our

minds based on gains for the communities that have taken place as to where it is

going to go, but, when all the information comes out, all the available

information that we have today, then we are going to make a decision; but there

is a time line here because there is a certain point beyond which an Income

Trust is just simply not going to happen. If this went beyond the summer and we

waited until November, then FPI basically says there is going to be no Income

Trust. Now, that does not mean we are on their time line and their agenda, but

if we are going to do what we can do to help save this company, if that is the

way we want to go, then we will do it. If not, we don't.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier, with all due respect, it is useless to have commitments

given to help rural Newfoundland, and communities in rural communities, if we,

as a government and as a Province, do not have the necessary securities in

hammer to ensure that FPI delivers on those commitments, and that is where I

think this agreement falls short.

I say to the Premier here: We are aware that this is not only allowing them

to sell 40 per cent of their marketing arm and the Value Added arm in Danvers.

This could lead to - we have no further control under the FPI Act as to what

they do anymore once we start on this road today if we agree that they can go

down this Income Trust road.

I say to the Premier: Where, in any of this agreement, is there anything

about monitoring? I have not seen anything about monitoring the commitments that

have been given by FPI. In addition to the security provisions that we do not

have, where does it say anywhere in this agreement what this government will do

or can do to ensure that FPI does due diligence to these commitments at any

given date? Are we subject to seeing annual reports of FPI saying we did this or

we did that? Where are we going to be able to monitor what they are telling us

they are going to do?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: This is a public company. They act in the public

domain. They are a public record. We will not be in everyday monitoring their

books. You know, if we want to get into that and we want to monitor Abitibi's

books and we want to monitor their books, we want to monitor IOC books, and we

want to get in on Exxon Mobile, we may as well shut the place down and say we

are not -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Excuse me. Just allow me to finish.

We may as well shut the place down and say we are not open for business. I

mean, you know, we have to act in reasonable, good faith. We cannot be blind. We

cannot put blind trust in. But, you know, on that board we have people like

Frank Coleman on the West Coast. We have people like Boyd Cohen. We had people

before like Senator George Furey. We have people like Father Des McGrath who are

on that Board of Directors.

Now, whatever we may think of John Risley - and I am not going to stand up

here and berate John Risley. I do not have any interest in doing that, and we

may have our own opinions about Derrick Rowe because he is CEO of the company

and he has taken some stands people do not like, and I am not going to comment

about that. But, you know, we do have reputable people on that board.

I know the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi knows Father Des McGrath, and I

am sure he respects him, and I am sure people here on both sides of the House

have the greatest respect for that person. He was in a meeting that we had in

the boardroom. So, we cannot micro manage the companies. Your point is valid.

Sure, we cannot cover everything off. I agree. I am being very honest and open

with you, we do not have control.

And yes, in answer to the hon. Leader of the Opposition, this can dilute and

they can eventually get control of the marketing arm. The Icelandic portion here

is not covered off because we cannot get an answer from the Icelanders, and FPI

cannot provide it because of internal discord that is going on. So, that is a

loose point. Even though Risley and Stanford may not be able to get control -

the Icelanders, they might be able to get control. So, they are the facts.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would like to remind members that lengthy

discourses in Question Period should be left for debate rather than have lengthy

discourses at this stage.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier, this is not about the integrity of the board members of

FPI. This is about the necessary protections that the people of this Province

deserve to have and that is what we are asking here, is that this agreement

right now is loosey-goosey. You do not have, in here, any security provisions to

protect the people of this Province, and that is what we are asking. We do not

operate in good faith. They are not a normally publicly traded company like

anybody else. They are governed by the FPI Act, by this Legislature, and all we

asking is that there be reasonable provisions put into that Act and kept in that

Act to ensure that the best interest and the public interests of this Province

is protected. It is not there right now.

For example, I ask the Premier again or the Minister of Justice, we have, as

part of this package here, an amendment which is going to take out the section,

the privative clause it is called, whereby FPI - normally now, if we did

something as a government and as a Province to restrict FPI's activities they

cannot sue the people of Newfoundland. We are going to take that out right now.

I am saying, why? Why would we allow FPI, as a part of this package of going off

to set up an Income Trust, why would we take out our own protection as a people

here and allow FPI to sue us in the future? Why would we do that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: The hon. gentleman is a lawyer, you should answer your

own question. You know why.

How can a company function with a privative clause? So they are subject to

the whims and fancies of whatever government is on this side, so that government

can act with reckless abandon and do whatever they want and have no consequences

for it. What has happened is the privative clause has covered the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador up to this point and on an ongoing basis because they

cannot get any money. Commercial transactions with the privative clause in it

causes them great difficulty.

I am really interested though in your approach on this, where you are asking

questions now and you are drilling down and you want all the answers and

everything else. Well, I am telling you, we have done what we can to the best of

our ability. When I was on that side of the House and the Lower Churchill was on

the go and you were Attorney General on this side of the House, I asked you

about that particular contract. Do you know what your answer was? You had not

even read it. Well, it is about time you started reading some things. It is nice

to see you interested for a change.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to see that what was supposed to be a non-political debate here

is turned into such by the Premier, but I am not going to go down that road.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: I am not going to go down that road, Mr. Speaker. I have

questions to ask because I think they are valid questions, and I am concerned

about what is happening and why we are here today.

I say to the Premier again, FPI is not a normal publicly traded company who

cannot operate with a privative clause. They are subject to the whims and wishes

of this Legislature by virtue of the FPI Act. They are not a normally traded

company. So, we do not have to give them the protections of any normally,

publicly traded company. I say to the Premier, again, and this is what this is

all about, trying to flesh out what is not here. I commended the government

yesterday for having done a good job on what we got so far; no problem with what

is here. My questions are directed to what is not here and what we should go the

extra few steps to get here. That is where my direction is coming from.

I say to the Premier again, if we have concerns, for example, based upon the

legal opinions to date as to whether FPI could or could not go where they want

to go here with the Income Trust anyway, why don't we have a second hammer

here? Why are we only talking here today about whether they can or cannot go

with the Income Trust provision?

If we have concerns about whether the act is strong enough to prevent them

anyway from proceeding, why don't we have here today - in the event that this

is voted down, where do we stand, Premier, tomorrow? If we vote this down as a

House today, and say they cannot go down the road of Income Trust, what are we

going to do to prevent FPI from proceeding anyway?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Do you know what we do if we vote this down today? We call the House back

again right away - probably as early as Monday - and we change the FPI Act to

close every possible loophole, and we make sure they cannot get away with it, if

we decide as a group - absolutely, no question.

What hon. members here have to decide, if they are discontent with these

problems, with these loopholes, and if they do not want to hold their nose and

vote for this, despite the loopholes, then they are saying to Fortune, and to

Harbour Breton, and to Bonavista, and to Port Union, and to Triton, and to Port

au Choix, and all the other communities around this Province that are governed

by FPI, that you do not want to see them move forward.

You make that decision, sir, because I am going to have to make it at the end

of the day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier.

In the last number of days we have seen FPI make additional commitments to

the Town of Bonavista and to the Town of Fortune. The deal sheet or the term

sheet that is part of this package does not obviously contain those commitments,

but anticipates the possibility that they might be there.

Is it government's intention, if this legislation is passed, to ensure that

these commitments are, in fact, written into the terms of the deal and are as

binding upon FPI as the other commitments that have been made?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker.

Everybody here in this House knows that this negotiation is going on right up

until the time we vote. That is where the pressure is building, and that is what

negotiation is all about. That is why the Fortune opportunity was disclosed.

That is why Bonavista stepped up and, as a result of the action of the people in

the communities, and the member, and the Member for Grand Bank, Fortune, they

progressed.

Up until after midnight last night, I was on the phone talking to federal

government officials at the very highest levels. This is an ongoing negotiation.

When we get it to what we finally can squeeze out of this turnip, the last bit

of blood that we can squeeze out of it, that will be the deal that will be

presented to this House and it will go in the term sheet.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier made it clear yesterday and again today that his support for this

agreement, or this legislation, rises or falls on the commitments that are going

to be made to the people of Harbour Breton.

I want to know, if that is the Premier's position, is that, in fact, his

own personal position or is he prepared to make that his government's

commitment and expect his government Cabinet and caucus to support that

position?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I am surprised the hon. member asked that. A free vote

is a free vote, is a free vote, is a free vote. People are free to vote as they

see. What we are trying to do here is make sure that everybody in this Chamber

has all of the information that is available.

It is quite obvious, I think, from where we are standing, as to what the

sympathies of members on this side of the House are for the people of Harbour

Breton - there is absolutely no doubt about it - but I am certainly not going to

try and impose my will on how they vote at the end of the day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is not the kind of decision that people have moral views on, that differ

greatly, that sometimes you expect to see a free vote on. Why is this government

not insisting that it, as a government, expects this company to perform in a

certain way, as the Premier has indicated he wishes them to do, and expect his

members and his government to support that position?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I could be wrong here, but, as far as I

understand, I have provided an opportunity here in this House that no Premier

has provided here in twenty years. This is a true free vote.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: The other thing I say quite honestly here today is a

personal thank you to all members, members opposite and members on this side of

the House. The day yesterday that we had in the House was the best day that I

have had in the House in four years. It was worthwhile, it was productive.

Everybody was actually listening to everybody. There was no banter going on, no

negative banter. There might have been some chatter, but very little.

We are accomplishing a lot. We are flushing out all of the issues. Hopefully,

by the end of the day, we will have it all up on the table so everybody can make

a decision; but, at the end of the day, people are going to have a free vote and

they are going to be able to make up their own minds on a very tough decision.

Question Period today started to heat up a little bit because we are all

under some pressure here. We have a tough decision to make on behalf of the

people of this Province, and we are going to do what is in the best interests of

the people of the Province and the best interests of rural Newfoundland and

Labrador.

I have to tell you, the one bit of criticism that hurts me the most is when

people say that I am not a proponent, I am not a champion of rural Newfoundland

and Labrador, because there is nothing further from the truth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Premier. It has probably already been asked through the

New Democratic Leader, but still I have to ask it for the people of Harbour

Breton and for their own comfort.

Mr. Speaker, the survival of Harbour Breton has been an issue now for some

months, since FPI announced they were pulling out of the town. Yesterday, the

Premier said that unless the government received a substantial commitment from

FPI he would not support the amendment. I ask the Premier, does he still stand

by that statement?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I think the member knows the answer to that. You are

asking, obviously, for the record and for the people for Harbour Breton.

It is very clear where I stand on this. What we are trying to do here as a

government is, we are trying to get some short-term money in order to allow the

people of Harbour Breton to get over the terrible crisis and the hump that they

are in right now. As well, we are trying to secure their plant and their

equipment; even though, as I said yesterday, it is a bit of a pig in a poke. It

needs a bit of work and there are environment issues. So that is part of the

issue.

We have tried to as well, and succeeded, in increasing the amount of money

that was made available. They asked for one point four. We actually, in fact,

got them three. What we would like to be able to do in the long term is secure a

quota, whether some of that being an existing quota, whether that is from FPI or

whether that is from somebody else. I know the Leader of the Opposition said

yesterday the red fish quota is not worth anything, but we are going to try and

accumulate whatever we can accumulate here.

As well, as I said last night, I was on the phone until after 12:00 o'clock.

I had several conversations with federal ministers and federal senior officials

in order to try and get a commitment from Minister Regan, Minister Stronach,

Minister McGuire, who are people that are able to provide a fish answer. They

are able to provide a monetary economic development answer, through McGuire and

through ACOA, and they are also able to provide an Income Support answer through

Minister Stronach.

What we are trying to do is come up with a comprehensive development plan for

Harbour Breton. What we are pursing is a private option as well, which involves

a pelagic quota which can, hopefully, increase the processing in Harbour Breton

and also help Burgeo and the South Coast of this Province. We are doing whatever

we can to come up with a (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are a lot of loopholes in this particular proposal being brought before

the House right now, and one of them is the availability of government funding.

I would like to ask the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development:

What allocations of taxpayers' dollars have been made to FPI to implement the

promises and commitments that they are making in this proposal?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The commitments have been laid out in the term paper as put before us here

today. All of these things are under discussion right now. This government has

made a commitment to the people of Harbour Breton as part of this package of

$250,000 for a business plan and we have made $1 million available for Income

Support.

We have also indicated, through our committee and through the Premier, that

we are prepared to consider further investment in Harbour Breton, depending on

what we are able to leverage out of FPI and, as well, the federal government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, FPI currently has permission from the Minister of

Fisheries to export unprocessed fish out of the Province. I would like to ask

the minister if the contents of this proposal passing today will stop that

practice of shipping unprocessed fish out of the Province by FPI?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the only authorization that FPI has to ship fish out of the

Province - there are four authorizations granted for shipping fish unprocessed

out of the Province. One is for turbot. The Labrador Fishermen's Union Shrimp

Company is one of the companies that accesses that. She was one of the ministers

who provided that authorization, just as the Leader of the Opposition did, just

as I do. Other companies access that. There is grey sole able to be shipped out

of the Province unprocessed for an ethnic market in Central Canada. I believe

she even probably signed that authorization, just as I did, just as the Leader

of the Opposition did, just as every minister since the late 1980s has.

There are two exceptions, Mr. Speaker. Undersized yellow tail, less than 400

grams, has been allowed to be shipped out since last summer, and redfish from 3O

has been allowed to be shipped out since last summer in small specified amounts.

The alternative is to put the less than 400 gram yellow tail into cat food,

fishmeal or to flush it out through the floodgates like was done in the 1980s.

That is the alternatives, Mr. Speaker.

Now, there is a committee in place, representatives of industry, the union,

DFO and DFA. The provincial Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture are

reviewing the minimum processing requirements that are allowed under our

regulations and there will be decisions made on that going forward. It has

absolutely no impact on Harbour Breton, those authorizations, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Question Period has expired.

The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sorry, you have not called Orders of the Day have you?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

Orders of the Day.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess we are going to continue the debate on the FPI Act. I believe the

next speaker comes from the Official Opposition side of the House and then we

will get back to our (inaudible) one and one.

With that, I do now move Orders of the Day, Mr. Speaker, with the bill for

debate before this House.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day have been called, and it is Bill 41.

The Chair recognizes continuing the debate by the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape

la Hune.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess I was in a little hurry to get up and did not realize that the Orders

of the Day had not been called. I have not been here long enough to know that.

It is just one of these things.

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt about it, that I have been here in this House

for sixteen years. There have been a number of people who have been here

probably a little longer than that. I cannot think of a situation where the

people's representatives from all of the forty-eight districts across the

Province are anymore important decisions to be made than we are making here. For

me, personally, it has been a really trying experience. I know that it has been

for everybody, but for the people of Harbour Breton - and I have been there with

Eric Day, Don Stewart, Gloria Skinner, Mike Whittle when he was there, Geraldine

Skinner, the union people and other people from the community, John George,

Cliff Jackman and others. It has been a situation for me that is very difficult,

in a sense, to explain.

Up to the point when the plant closed in Harbour Breton last April, in my

mind's eye, as I look here now I see a community that is vibrant. I see people

who are moving back and forth in the community. I see the steam stacks in the

Harbour Breton fish plant steaming out, people coming to lunch and going back to

work. My mind can go back a little earlier than that, before the moratorium when

the people in Harbour Breton, like they did in Gaultois and Ramea, were lucky if

they got Christmas Day off, or if they got summer holidays because they were

working fifty-two weeks of the year because we are ice-free on that part of the

coast. But, November, 2004, Mr. Speaker, it was like a veil, a dark veil, a dark

blanket that came in over the community and settled on the Town of Harbour

Breton; not only on Harbour Breton, but also on the Connaigre Peninsula. The

people were taken by surprise, very surprised, by the very callous act - and I

am going to say callous act - repugnant on behalf of FPI. Because every one of

these people who are here from Harbour Breton in the gallery and the people who

are back home in the Town of Harbour Breton had no idea that they were not going

back to work in November. People were hoping against hope. Many of them, their

EI had ran out and about to run out just before Christmas. People did not have

anything.

Here we are, some months after, in a situation in Harbour Breton where the

future is probably more uncertain now than it has ever been, or just as

uncertain for them, even though, as the Premier said, there is some progress

being made, and nobody in this House, and not even anybody, probably, from the

town as well, is any more hopeful that something will happen for the town and

for the Connaigre Peninsula, and many of the people who have spoken across the

floor have recognized that.

Mr. Speaker, what we have here, as I said, is a callous act. I can remember

many meetings. I have been at many meetings with the Harbour Breton crew when we

went to FPI. I am telling you, it was the same response as if you were talking

to mannequins: no feeling toward us. That is the situation that we had to endure

over the last number of months, and we are where we are today because of that

situation.

I remember FPI because, as I said, I had been in the Legislature for a number

of years when FPI's CEO was Vic Young. I am not saying that Vic Young had no

flaws, did not do anything that was probably not right for the communities of

Fortune, or Marystown, or Burin, or Harbour Breton, but I will tell you one

thing about him that I found: If he told you something, you could take it to the

bank. He was a man of his word, and that is what I like. Your word is your bond.

If you give somebody your word and then you go back on it, what do you have? You

do not have anything. So, here is the situation.

Am I surprised that we are in the Legislature today with FPI? Absolutely not.

I am not surprised. Do I want to be here? It is not that I do not want to be.

That is probably not in the right context; it is the situation that we are in.

We all saw what happened to FPI in 2001.

The Premier says - and I agree with him - you have a lot of good businessmen

from Newfoundland: the Rex Anthonys and the Frank Colemans of the world, on the

board. I am not questioning that, but just think about it. Here is a CEO of a

company - and you talk about making decisions. We have talked about it here in

the House of Assembly. We talk about making sound, practical business decisions.

What I am going to say has nothing against Bonavista, it has nothing against

Fortune or any other town, but we are here looking at making a decision whether

we are going give FPI the Income Trust or not.

Well, let's go back and look at the decision that they made only a little

while ago in Bonavista. Just think about it, practical decisions from government

or a company using the person's money wisely.

They have a modern plant in Port Union that could accommodate every person

from Bonavista to work in the plant. How far is it away? Nine miles, and they

are going to build a new plant. I am not saying that they should, but we are

talking about sound principle decisions. That is the decision that they have

made. What about us? Where are we? We are down on the Connaigre Peninsula, three

hours from Grand Falls, with no hope. Couldn't they have taken that $8 million

and built a new plant in Harbour Breton and done some subsidizing with it? I

guess it is a rhetorical question that all of us can answer in a different way.

Think about the situation in Fortune - nothing against Fortune, nothing

against Burin. I am just laying it out as I see it, and the people from Harbour

Breton, because we are in a situation where this company have gotten themselves

into the red and I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, that if we pass the Income Trust

that it will do anything in the long term for the company anyhow. If you are

going to make decisions like that, you cannot last.

Think of the situation, where they have the Burin situation. Any company, if

you are going to consolidate and you are going to cut down expenses, and you are

going to do it, you are going to do it more efficiently from one particular

building than you are from two, aren't you?

I see that situation - the company they have done - is Wal-Mart building a

store side by side, with the same thing. You do not have to make a business

practice like that, but that is what they have done. You talk about. Let me go a

bit farther. He is saying, for example, we cannot compete in Harbour Breton in

the groundfish industry because of the Chinese thing. The Chinese can process

primary production cheaper than we can. I am not disputing that, but as we speak

I have been told there are only two secondary processing plants in China but

they are on the verge of building and putting on stream eight more.

Now, if we cannot compete in primary and they are going to build eight more,

and that will give them ten secondary processing plants in China, if we cannot

compete under the same conditions with primary, can we or will we compete in the

secondary processing? That is a question for all of us to answer here and to

think about. Whether they can or not, I do not know.

I am telling you that any community in Newfoundland and Labrador needs hope,

and I know where Fortune is and I know that, with them, they have some hope.

Nobody would be any happier than me if Fortune is there 200 years from now and

processing 2,000 people rather than 200. The same thing with Bonavista, the same

thing with Port Union, but I have a real problem with the particular way that it

is being run. I really do. I really do.

You know, the thing about it is, I will ask the question. I do not know,

because I have never been a CEO of a company. I am not a business person, but

hopefully I have some common sense. How much does Frank Coleman play? What part

does he play? How much does Rex Anthony play into it? Has it all been given to

Derrick Rowe? Derrick Rowe, when he became the CEO of FPI, said: I do not know

anything about fish. I am only here pro tem. But, what happened? He has been

there full time now.

To talk about how the company is run, there is something about it that is not

right, and that is what the people of Harbour Breton think, the same as I do:

There is something just not right here. They were going to have a shareholders

meeting the other day, not too long ago. They were going to have it in

Newfoundland. They were going to have it in St. John's, and they thought a few

people like Eric Day and Gloria and Geraldine and a few other people from

Harbour Breton were going to go down to their meeting and they were going to

cause havoc and cause disruption. What did they do? They went to Toronto. Where

did they have it? In a small room. How long did it take? Six minutes. He said

that himself; we only had to do it for the sake of doing it.

I mean, there is something basically wrong and we do not have to be Einstein

to think about it. Just think about it. There is something wrong with that. What

were you running from? Who were they running from? They were running from people

who had given them the sweat of their brow.

Don't tell me that, over the years, there was no money made in Harbour

Breton, because there was. You talk to any of the boys from Harbour Breton. In

one of the stipulations in the paper that is there for us to see, they talked

about all the new equipment they put in Harbour Breton. Ask the people from

Harbour Breton how much new equipment was there. Do you know where the equipment

came from? The equipment came from Marystown. It wasn't new equipment off the

block. It came from the Marystown plant and they gave it to Harbour Breton.

You talk about productivity. Every one of those people in Harbour Breton

feels that they were sabotaged. Go and ask them individually. Do you know how

they figure they were sabotaged? Before they put in the new lines that they

brought from Marystown, they were on a twenty-four hour production that would do

about 135,000 pounds of fish, and when they brought in the new machines do you

know what they did? They did 35,000, or 55,000. If you cannot make it, or you

are just making it, on 125,000 and you are going to produce 35,000 or 40,000 or

45,000 pounds on the two shifts, you are going to be making a profit?

I wasn't in the plant. The people from Harbour Breton will tell you that

the people who are managers there were frustrated to tears, knew that it could

not work. People want it to work. These are people who have worked a long, long

time for FPI and Harbour Breton. They are not Come By Johnnys. Some of them are

forty-seven or forty eight years of age and have worked in the plant since they

were seventeen. They chose - and I understand that - to go to the plant without

furthering their education because they thought they saw a future.

Here we are today with FPI - and I have said so in the House here. It is not

anything new. It is probably redundant for the people who are on the other side,

but I have to say it again: The situation that we find ourselves in, in Harbour

Breton, the people think there is no need of it. I have heard John George and

saw e-mails, probably you already got it as well. They figure that FPI should

still be a part of Harbour Breton, and that is their best chance. You know, all

of the things that add up together don't make sense, even in the paper.

I do not know what chance the people of Harbour Breton would have if they

went to the Labour Standards Board to get their proper severance of twelve

weeks. I do not know. Nobody knows. They are going to give us $1.5 million for

short-term work upfront, and the other $1.5 million is contingent on the fact

that we take it off the board and we do not contest it at the Labour Standards

Board. The reason why they are saying they cannot do it is because Harbour

Breton plant - when they left Occupational, Health and Safety turned it down. It

was not occupyable', for all the obvious reasons. Who allowed it to happen?

It wasn't the people from Harbour Breton who allowed it to happen, it was FPI.

In 2001, the same board of directors, the same group of people who said to

Harbour Breton: Don't worry about us. The Government House Leader knows. When

they told us, the FPI group: You don't have to worry about it. That was their

words. We will take care of Harbour Breton. We will take care of Fortune. We

will take care of Marystown. We will expand. We will put new equipment in

Harbour Breton. We will build a new plant. Where are we now? We are not there.

Circumstances have changed. I am not a fool to realize that business practices

have not changed, consolidation has not occurred, that new technology and the

way to do things have not progressed. We would be simpletons if we did not

realize that.

What I am saying is that the FPI company have really done an injustice to

Harbour Breton. I have told Derrick Rowe, and you have heard me say - and I did

not finish the thought - you morally should give Harbour Breton people the

twelve weeks work. Just imagine! If they are going to use that excuse that you

can allow a business to run into the ground and as a result of that, nobody then

- whoever works in any type of business afterwards can ever go to the Labour

Standards Board and seek an injustice because there has been a precedent set

now. What is wrong with any other company doing the same thing? I do not have to

keep up my business. I can allow it to become dilapidated. I can let it run into

the ground and I can get out of my obligation. That sends me a wrong message.

There is something wrong with that. That is what they said and that is why the

people of Harbour Breton are so skeptic about it all; they are.

We have been dealing with them and with the IAS Committee. Eric and Don - I

say first names because they are friends. We have gone to FPI - and Dave Vardy.

After we left the Premier's office the other day the Minister of Rural

Development and the Minister of Fisheries, we went over to FPI. I am telling

you, the reception that we got was unbelievable. I have never seen anything like

it in my life. It was actually rude. Ask Dave Vardy about it, who is a former

Deputy Minister of Fisheries and Chair of the IAS Committee. He said, I will

never go back to meet with Derrick Rowe anymore. We were insulted. That is who

we deal with, and that is how the people of Harbour Breton - I tell you what it

is like, it is David and Goliath.

You have a small community of Harbour Breton, 2,000 people fighting FPI and

fighting the federal government. I am going to tell you, the federal government

have not been very helpful either. I am telling you, the problem I see with it

and I cannot - people will point fingers at me and say: You were there, you were

part of government. So I was. I did not do everything that was perfect and in

hindsight, would probably give you some ideas how you should do things

differently. But, because Harbour Breton is somehow what we would find anywhere

across Canada where a business would shutdown and say: We can't do anything

for you. There are no programs here. There are no programs from ACOA. There are

no programs for work projects; nothing for you. We cannot do it because if you

do it - the Member for St. Barbe says he wrote a letter the other day to the

for everywhere else.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Member for Humber-St. Barbe.

MR. LANGDON: I am sorry. The Member for Humber-St. Barbe. Okay, I did not

mean Mr. Young.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LANGDON: No, no. You know where I am coming from.

The same person, the same Member of Parliament for that area last year

received money for Englee. What we are asking for from the federal government

for Harbour Breton - he got it last year for Englee and now he is writing the

federal government saying you cannot do it? There is something wrong with that.

The other situation that we have is a situation we have with the union

people. We have, for example, Eric Day and the local committee, frustration. I

don't know, probably Eric might have said some things sometimes but we would

have all said it if we were in the same situation. The same thing with Don,

frustration level. That is what it is about, frustration. I am going to tell

you, you ask the people from Harbour Breton and you can see it in what has

happened. The union leadership, from the top, is divide and conquer. They have

not stood together, and that is some of the problems that we have. So, there are

all kinds of problems.

So, let me get back to FPI then. Let me get back to FPI. Should they do

something for Harbour Breton? Absolutely. Can they do something for Harbour

Breton? Absolutely. I think that they can. They are going to get $100 million

here. They can, if they wanted to, out of the $100 million, put some money into

Harbour Breton and if there is no quota they can put the money in so that quota

can be bought. They have to do that because the short term thing that we have,

it is really, in a sense, not going to do it. We cannot have people working on

make-work projects forever. Even at $10 an hour, you cannot do it forever. You

can do it for a short term but you will have to see, at the end of the day,

there is light at the end of the tunnel. You cannot do that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's allotted time has expired.

MR. LANGDON: By leave to clue up (inaudible)?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave. Leave has been granted to make some concluding

comments.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I honestly think, and the people of Harbour Breton who are here realize, that

at the end of the day there must be something more substantial in what we have

here in order for their community to survive. As a Legislature, I think at the

end of the day, all of us - obviously, the first reason why we are here is the

fact that we represent our district, but in the common good of all of us - we

are all brothers and sisters, all of these communities, but I really believe

that there has to be something substantial for Harbour Breton. If there is

nothing substantial for Harbour Breton - if there is no quota, for example -

where do they go? What do they do?

I want to separate two things here, and I will sum up with this. I recognize

that there are going to have to be some things done for Harbour Breton outside

of FPI, when FPI is gone by government. I realize that, but my emphasis is, we

cannot let FPI off the hook. They owe Harbour Breton something, something

substantial, after being there ever since the 1950s. They owe it to them. They

owe it to them. These people have left these people high and dry and left them

with no future.

So, at the end of the day, I really hope, I really do - I sometimes hope

against hope for these people. This is not about Oliver Langdon. This is not

whether you are part of the government or part of the Opposition. This is about

people. This is about community. This is about a region, and all of us, at the

end of the day, have to weigh what it is that we expect a company like FPI to be

able to do for the people of Harbour Breton, to give them something in addition

to what the government would do later on for that community. It has to. If not,

as far as I am concerned, they would have perpetrated an injustice on the people

of Harbour Breton and the Connaigre Peninsula by walking away from them and not

doing justice for their tenure in that community.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have just been advised that the satellite time that we had been advised

earlier would not be available after 11:30 a.m., we have now been advised that

satellite time will be available until 7:00 o'clock this evening.

I wish to thank publicly the user who had that time, for giving up his time

on satellite so that the House of Assembly could be shown in real time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Topsail.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the opportunity today to stand and speak to Bill 41.

I would like to indicate at the outset that I represent the District of

Topsail, and many of the residents there are not involved with the fishing

community. I believe I have a few fishermen in my community, and a few fish

plant workers, but many of the residents in my district are from rural

communities. I know that there are residents there from Burin, from Harbour

Breton, from Bonavista. In fact, I have very good friends who are from the

community of Harbour Breton.

Before I get into, I guess, the meat of my comments, I would like to

acknowledge the people in the gallery. I do see some people there from my

district, but I understand that there are also people there from the Burin

Peninsula, from Harbour Breton, and from the Bonavista Peninsula. I am sure I

have probably missed some people who are from other areas in the Province, but I

would like to welcome them here today to view this very important debate.

Mr. Speaker, FPI was created in the 1980s, and at that time I was working

with the Department of Finance. I can remember when FPI was created and

privatized. I can remember that there was a great deal of optimism that the

problems that were being experienced in the fisheries would now be resolved, or

at least some of them would be resolved, with the privatization of FPI. I think

that as we look back on the last twenty years we see that FPI has had its share

of challenges.

I have not heard very many people get up in this House and speak favourably

of FPI, but I would like to mention one thing and it is in relation to

section 7

of the Act. Fishery Products International was privatized twenty years ago. It

is governed by

an Act of the Legislature, so, in effect, it is something like a

hybrid. It is a private company. It is publicly traded. It is not a Crown

corporation, but government has still been able to maintain some control over

the corporation.

There has been some debate about

section 7 of the Act, and whether Fishery

Products actually had to come into government for approval in order to arrange

financing through the Income Trust. There are legal opinions that say no, they

did not have to do it, so we do have to give some credit to the corporation,

that they did come in to government and ask for government's approval to

proceed with this method of financing.

As I indicated, FPI has operated through the 1980s, the 1990s, and now into

the twenty-first century, and it has had its share of difficulties. It is a very

difficult industry that they are trying to make money in, and it has been

plagued by many, many problems.

There has been some discussion in this House with regard to the financial

problems being experienced by the company. I will not get into that, but you can

look at their Web site and you can see that the company has a history of: some

years they have profits, some years they have losses. They have had their share

of challenges. Just this year, they have decided that they have to suspend their

dividends for the first quarter of 2005.

One thing is clear: Fishery Products International does have problems

accessing financing, and they will not survive unless they have access to money.

They have come in, they have informed government they cannot assume any more

debt, and are now looking at the Income Trust as a method of obtaining that

financing.

Many people have gotten up in this House and have talked about the Income

Trust. Income Trust is not something new. Many, many, many companies are

accessing funds through Income Trust, and that company has decided that is a

source of financing for them. It needs money to finance working capital. It has

a high debt load. If you look at their financial statements on the Web site, you

will see that their debt has increased significantly over the past year. It

needs funds to retire debt, it needs money to invest in other related

businesses, and it needs this money to meet the strategic objectives of the

corporation. If that company cannot access funding, it will surely die. They

have recognized that Income Trust is an option for them, and it is a common

means of financing.

I would like to go back and talk a little bit more about FPI being privatized

in the 1980s. I do not think very many people have stood in this House - I know

the Premier mentioned it this morning - but that is a publicly-traded company.

It is not a Crown corporation. I notice that one member on the opposite side of

the House did say earlier this morning, we are going to lose control of FPI.

FPI is not a Crown corporation. It is a publicly-traded company, and I have

problems when the government continues to try to interfere in the operations of

a publicly-traded company for any private company. My philosophy is, how a

publicly-traded company finances its operations should be a decision of the

management and the board of directors.

There was some discussion here this morning like, how relevant is the board?

How much power does Derrick Rowe have? I think that is a matter that has to be

discussed between management and the board. I do not think that we, as Members

of the House of Assembly, should be looking at Fishery Products and saying the

management should do this or the board should do that. I think that the

management and the board themselves should decide how the financing should be

arranged.

I know there have also been some discussions with regard to how much the

government should put into Fishery Products. For example, should there be loan

guarantees? How much financial assistance will it give? There is a limit to what

the Province can do for Fishery Products International in terms of money. The

Province has its own financial problems to solve. There is a limit to what the

Province can do for Fishery Products International in terms of money. The

Province has its own financial problems to solve. There is a limit to what the

Province can do to help Fishery Products International. The bottom line is that

the Newfoundland fishery is plagued by problems, including a shortage of fish

and a surplus of processing capacity.

Many members of this House have expressed concerns over whether FPI will live

up to their commitments. I share those concerns, but I can tell you one thing:

Voting against this amendment will not solve the problems of the fishing

industry and of FPI. If I thought that voting against this amendment would solve

those problems, or some of the problems, I would be the first one to stand up in

this House and vote against it. Sadly, voting for Bill 41 will not solve those

problems either, but it will give the company an opportunity, it gives them a

window, because they have to grow and they have to operate in a competitive

industry.

This government has done the best it can to obtain commitments from Fishery

Products International, and they have also put in place remedies should the

company default. There are restrictions on how the proceeds will be used. Yes,

we were all suspicious. They are going to get $100 million from the Income

Trust, or that is what they estimate. They may not get that. We were all

suspicious: How will they use it? So, we plugged that loophole. We put

restrictions on the distribution of funds into the future. We got a commitment

for community benefits. We got a commitment for industrial benefits. We got

commitments for groundfish undertakings, and we got remedies.

Like my colleagues in this House, I, too, would like to see something more

done for Harbour Breton, and I do think that Fishery Products International does

have a social responsibility to step up to the plate and do something for the

community that has done so much for them over the years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS E. MARSHALL: But, in the final analysis, Mr. Speaker, I would like to

indicate that when the time comes to vote on Bill 41, I will be voting in

support of that Bill.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to Bill

I have to be honest. From what I saw, listened to, heard, and read about, I

had every intention of possibly not being able to stand here today with regard

to Bill 41, because I was expecting an announcement at any time at all that

everything would be fine for Harbour Breton and really what we are doing here

today would be an exercise that we would not even have to consider. Having said

that, Mr. Speaker, that has not happened and I will proceed with the comments

that I have prepared in regard to this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I sat here in the hon. House yesterday for the full duration and

I listened to members on both sides of the House express their views very

seriously, because this is a very serious situation. I listened to the Premier

and all the members on his side, and the Leader of our Opposition, and all

members over here as well as members of the NDP Party. We heard members speak

about the history of FPI, very detailed. We heard people express their concerns,

what happened to them and their communities when they were younger people and

what had happened. We heard what it means to Harbour Breton to be facing the

situation that they face today. We heard what it means to Fortune and Bonavista,

in the District of Bonavista South, what it means to them with the information

that they received this week.

Mr. Speaker, we heard people stand and express their fears and doubts and

concerns with this bill, whether it should pass or be defeated. We have heard

concerns expressed about the involvement of the federal government. We expressed

concerns, and we know the involvement of the people in the various towns, the

commitments that they have made in trying to do what is best for the survival of

their communities.

Mr. Speaker, I guess, having come originally from the Burin Peninsula, I know

a little bit about the situation up there and what the fishery meant to that

Peninsula, whether it be Fortune, Grand Bank, Burin, Marystown, St. Lawrence or

Lawn. I came from a little community, I guess, where the fishery was a lot

smaller than what those people were used to, but I also knew from a very early

age that if there was no fish there was no bread.

Mr. Speaker, I can relate to the total opposite, after moving from the Burin

Peninsula to the wonderful area in the District of Port de Grave, and to see the

total comparison of what I left to where I went; because, when you look at the

community of Port de Grave, and the wonderful fishery not only in that town in

particular but throughout that area, and what it means to the economy of that

region, it is totally different.

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back for a moment to the crab dispute that happened

recently this year, just to say, by that fishery being delayed for two weeks,

what an impact it has made on that area to the business community not only in my

district but in the neighbouring towns as well. Mr. Speaker, they will not

survive over this summer, even though the fishery is ongoing, even though the

plant workers are back to work, because people are concerned about the future

and they are not spending like they had in the past.

Mr. Speaker, I can only imagine what it is like to Harbour Breton, what it

was like with the concerns that Fortune and Bonavista had prior to the

announcements this week, based on what I have seen and recognized in my own

district.

Mr. Speaker, when we look at the FPI Term Sheet, we see here where this

company is asking government, asking this hon. House, to give them permission to

sell off the marketing arm of that company.

Mr. Speaker, we also know that, when we look at some of the proposals that

are there, and we also see that they are asking government for some concessions

with regard to the plant that is anticipated and hopefully will go ahead -

(inaudible) the FPI, but the $8 million for Fortune - we know that they are

asking the government for 50 per cent of the capital in the form of an

interest-free loan. We know that they are asking for concessions, as well, with

regard to, I think it is $1 million for some other project they had in mind but

they need matching funds from this government.

Mr. Speaker, I guess that concerns me to a certain degree when here we are

today, if we vote yes to Bill 41, we are saying to them that they can sell off

40 per cent of the most lucrative part of FPI, and I hear the figure being

thrown around of $100 million. We know that $30 million of it will go to

reducing the debt, and we know there are other funds. It is somewhere in the

vicinity, I think, of $50 million or $54 million that is still there, and I am

sure it will be used to the best advantage of the company, but I have concerns

why they cannot invest more of that in this Province, whether it be Harbour

Breton or some other infrastructure here in this Province in relation to the

fishery, because we know FPI was created right here in this hon. House. I

believe that they owe a great deal to the people of this Province, and I think

that has to be looked at, even though we will voting later today.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to know that the operations will continue in

Marystown, Port au Choix, Port Union, Triton and Burin. I am also very pleased

to know that Fortune and Bonavista are to get new facilities. That is all

wonderful, but, Mr. Speaker, the concern that I have - and it is a serious

concern that I have - is that the commitments that are made - it is all fine for

all those communities, but I would think that someone who is selling off their

most valuable arm of their company should have a longer plan in mind than

committing five years to each and every one of those communities in this

Province. I have concerns with that, Mr. Speaker, because it is all subject to

raw material supply and economic viability.

Mr. Speaker, I know the negotiations have been ongoing for fourteen months

between government, FPI and all the shareholders. They must have spent many long

hours debating and seeking for more than what we had originally heard of.

However, for whatever reasons, I guess FPI must have seen the trend of the way

things were going - and I do not mean to take anything away from the work of the

government team that met with FPI for the fourteen months, but we saw more

happening in the last two days. We got this proposal, I think it is dated June

6, and by June 8 we had funding for a new plant in Fortune, a new plant in

Bonavista. I say hurray for those two communities and to the residents there.

If this company - they are asking us to put our trust in them in good faith,

and that is what we had done when we got this proposal. I thought we were coming

here to the House to debate what was in that proposal but it changed within two

days, and I have to say, it changed for the better. Then, Mr. Speaker, it makes

you doubt what they are telling you upfront is actually what they have in mind.

Bill 41, Mr. Speaker, is about allowing FPI to sell their most valued asset

and creating new income for the company. Having said that, that is all

wonderful, Mr. Speaker, but I have to say to you, and I think someone said last

evening, we are in the eleventh hour. We are to the point now where it is less

than the eleventh hour. The buck stops right here with us. The forty-seven

people in this hon. House will either stand one way or the other at the end of

the day. When we stand and vote on this proposal there will be no more

negotiations when it comes to that part of it. There will be no more arguments.

There will be no more promises because today, June 10, will be the day of

decision when it comes to Bill 41.

I have to say, it was the taxpayers of this Province, and probably throughout

the country, who provided hundreds of millions of dollars to create FPI. I

believe FPI has an obligation to the fishing communities that it represents in

this Province. When we vote today, I ask: Will we give away that obligation?

Will we give away that commitment? When we vote today, will we have an FPI? I

have to say, yes, we will have an FPI but I do not think it will be an FPI as we

know it today. They say they had to sell this to survive and expand.

I have to ask, Mr. Speaker, when I see where they are spending the money in

this Province to pay the debt or to build those two plants and with $54 million

left over, I have to ask: Where are they going to expand their business? What is

involved? I think other members opposite referenced the freezer trawlers and

that yesterday, and I am wondering: Is that where this money will be spent? As I

said earlier, they are selling 40 per cent of the most lucrative arm of that

company. The other question we have to ask is: Will they continue to sell it

until that full 100 per cent of the 65 per cent of that company is gone?

FPI are promising to continue to market seafood for other Newfoundland

companies. If they should continue to sell off their marketing arm, what happens

there? Will there be any protection to assist those other processors here in

this Province? Like I said earlier, they are seeking guarantees from this

government, and I believe that more of the $100 million should be spent to

guarantee what they have committed to, rather than looking for concessions from

our government.

We talk about commitments and guarantees. I have to say, with all sincerity,

what commitments? What guarantees? If Bill 41 is passed I believe FPI will have

a freewheeling hand on what they wish to do. The most they can put on the table,

according to the information I have received, is five years, pending viability

and raw material supply. I would say, and all due respect, five years to those

communities is crucial. I know that. Five years to Harbour Breton today would be

wonderful news - for Bonavista and Fortune and all the others - knowing that

they are going to be around for another five years, but for me, when I look at

this large company and the assets that they have and they want to sell off this

arm so that they can expand and grow, I would like to see that growth here in

this Province. A five year plan to me, it is not enough and it is not good

enough. I have to say that being the good corporate sponsors this company has

been, I think they owe more than that to this Province.

As I said earlier, this company was created here in Newfoundland and Labrador

and I believe they have a commitment to every community, and more so to Harbour

Breton, because as we speak right now I do not see anything on the books that is

satisfactory to the people of that wonderful community who have been good to

this company. We all agree that FPI has to do what is viable. However, I say to

them: Don't forget who created you. Don't forget who made you viable. Don't

forget the communities who accepted you.

I am pleased with the commitments made to those other communities, as I have

stated earlier. The only thing, I wish they were for longer than a five year

time frame. I fail to be able to say that this is long-range planning. I have

heard members say here, and I am proud when I heard the Member for Bonavista

South and the Member for Grand Bank say: We agree with this. We see a light at

the end of the tunnel. My hope is that the gleam of light will grow to be a very

bright light, but when we look at the tunnel to Harbour Breton we see nothing,

only the tunnel completely blocked. No light will ever shine through at its

present stage.

It has been said that if this company is not permitted to advance it could

strangle in the market place. That is not very good news, Mr. Speaker, but I

have to say, neither is it good news for the people of Harbour Breton to be

strangling in their own Province. Harbour Breton and its residents have been

good to FPI and we ask nothing less in return from this company.

Will the plant go ahead in Bonavista? I sure hope so. Will the plant go ahead

in Fortune? I sure hope so. Will Burin, Marystown, Port au Choix, Port Union and

Triton remain viable? I sure hope so. With all of this said, and if Harbour

Breton were to get news today that they are being given what they have

requested, I would have to say that I still have concerns about Bill 41. For a

company who has the desire to expand and grow, a five-year plan, to me, is no

acceptable to the good people of this Province. To me, it is basically a slap in

the face.

Mr. Speaker, let it be recorded that I firmly believe that in less than ten

years the only happy people about all of this will be one Mr. Risley and the

shareholders of FPI. This bill is all about FPI selling its most valuable

resource. Yes, on the forefront we see a concern for the people of this

Province, but I do not call it a solid concern when I look at a five-year time

frame. I do not believe we should ever be here in this House debating this bill

unless there was something there concrete for Harbour Breton just as it has been

provided for Bonavista and Fortune. I have seen the hon. Member for Lake

Melville say, why didn't I give John a call? Here we go again with the

political rhetoric that was never supposed to be debated here in this House on

this wonderful debate.

I say, Mr. Speaker, the proposal that has been put forward, they have pitted

community against community, really, members in the hon. House debating which

way to go when we look at members on both sides of the House. I say no quota for

Harbour Breton is devastating. I mean, if Harbour Breton should go by the

wayside after today's vote, I can assure you, of all of the communities on

that list, who will be next?

Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude with a statement that was made by the hon.

the Minister of Transportation and Works. I am sure he will not mind me using

one of his quotes.

MR. RIDEOUT: As long as it is accurate.

MR. BUTLER: Oh, it is accurate, sir. It is right from our wonderful

Hansard, and it goes back to March 12, 2002, about the same company but a

different scenario, but I think his words are fitting today. I quote, when he

said, "Never let us forget, Mr. Speaker, that Fishery Products

International is the company of Newfoundland and Labrador. It was created to

benefit the people of Newfoundland and Labrador."

Then he goes on to say - and the topic of conversation was about the 15 per

cent cap. It was in 1999, and he said in 1999 that: We did not agree to remove

the 15 per cent cap. Thank God we did not fall prey to the invitation of FPI

executives themselves to remove it. Thank God we did not do that because, if we

had done that, Mr. Speaker, we, as I said, would not have the right, I do not

believe, to be here today.

Mr. Speaker, I will end with those notes.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to have a few words to this bill as well, Bill 41.

I have an FPI plant in my district, in the Town of Port au Choix, Mr.

Speaker, very significant to the economy of the Northern Peninsula. When Fishery

Products came to Port au Choix back in 1965, and brought in a floating

groundfish plant, it was the beginning of a time of resettlement in this

Province. Because of the stability that plant brought to that town, that was the

town that was chosen to be the community where everybody was to resettle. It was

the growth centre, and a lot of things were built around that plant.

Mr. Speaker, in the beginning, from a floating plant to one that was built

onshore, to expanding into the shrimp, it was nothing but growth and the

possibilities seemed endless, but today in Port au Choix we just have a shrimp

plant. After the cod moratorium we saw great turmoil coming in through all of

our communities, and Port au Choix was no exception. We had to make difficult

decisions, whether to go out there and accept what the future looked like and

try to make up how to best navigate those waters, and I think the town at the

time had chosen that yes, we will accept the proposal that was put forward by

FPI and that it would become a shrimp plant and a shrimp plant only. That was an

extremely difficult decision to make at the time. Today we have a plant there

that is very prosperous, and we look to a great future with it.

I look today at the opportunities there with the proposals that we have

because of the shrimp, and what possibilities are there, but when I went back to

the district this past week, after being briefed by the government officials and

by Derrick Rowe, with his pitch into what the future would look like, I saw

those opportunities and I took them back, but I must say that when I went back

to the district I heard a lot of concerns.

There was a lot of distrust, I suppose, when you have gone through great

change and uncertainty and everything that comes in seems to be less employment,

less opportunities, and we seem to be boxing ourselves in. So, if you have

communities ongoing with this kind of struggle, it brings you about with a

certain mindset, and I think the mindset was there, a mistrust in any regard.

A number of things that were said to me were, it did not make any difference

if we vote yes or no here today, it was just a mistrust in general. We debated

some of those concerns and I had followed through with them in exploring those

possibilities, but I suppose the one that came back most from the people in my

district was the five years. We know that five years is nothing but a blink of

an eye in the life of a community, and the trials, so it continuously came back

to me: How can you have something in a five-year span that is going to be viable

and, on that basis, have it as an assurance? It really does not mean anything to

the people, because we have to look at our communities in much longer terms, as

in generations and in mortgages, and what we want to do to be able to go out and

prosper and to grow and have a good quality of life, Mr. Speaker.

One of the things that keeps coming up in there, it is not so much for the

processors or the plant in itself but for the harvesters as well. Back in the

Gulf fleet, we had an opportunity to go to Quebec at one time. Because it was

owned outside the Province, and the regulations - if you could sail into a port

in Quebec, it was fine. You could sail there and you could sell your product

and, because they had competition at that time, because that was possible, the

price had gone up significantly. They were no longer trapped into a system in

Newfoundland. They saw that as a great advantage, and they had seen a price for

shrimp that was $1.10 a pound that year to $1.15. It was incredible, the change.

The price had doubled because they had negotiating powers.

Those people see any change, or anything that is boxed in, or anything that

is coming down, as a change for the worst and not as a change for the good, so I

guess the change brings concern naturally. It is not something that you can

accept with open arms, because you have so many opportunities there but you also

have so many ways that things can go bad.

I think the people were very concerned that it was there, and they expressed

those concerns, although there were many in the community as well who saw the

opportunity, and I came back and wanted to express that I was not selling this

on anybody's behalf, because I certainly would not want to be the person to go

out there and say: This is good. I know exactly what is going to happen. I just

wanted to let the people know that I was bringing it back. I saw what I saw. I

expressed the concerns, and I heard them and agree with them. I have the same

concerns, but I also saw the opportunity. I wanted to express those

opportunities and the fact that we became a shrimp plant, and a shrimp plant

only, because that is where we are growing, and we are growing. We have the Gulf

shrimp there, which is a very valuable stock. It is a higher value than the

Northern shrimp. So that has been given as a good base, a good assurance that we

have value in the system, whether it is FPI or in the whole shrimp industry. We

have an edge. We have a hook in there, which is a very good hook, and it gives

us some assurance that we see a future.

In seeing a company that is interested in going out and expanding in its

marketing abilities - to have a company like FPI who markets more than just FPI

and markets other shrimp companies as well. The Northern Peninsula and my

district - I have three shrimp plants. The economy of the Northern Peninsula

today, the economic engine is backed by the shrimp industry. To have FPI go and

expand into Europe, to buy a company that will put them into the face of the

customers, to understand their customers better - to get that volume out into

Europe from Newfoundland is extremely important. The same as they do in the

U.S., by being a company in Europe it will give them an opportunity to get

around that 20 per cent tariff. It will reduce the 20 per cent tariff to a 6 per

cent tariff when they repackage. So many things have held back the growth of

this industry here. We are not being able to take advantage of the industrial

shrimp as we should, or bring the jobs in to expand our season, or fill in the

holes where we have people laid off, or just not working at a time is extremely

important.

I see those things are positive and I can see where Port au Choix will grow

and Port au Choix will have an opportunity with FPI. I see where the shrimp

industry will grow as a whole, which will mean certainly the Northern Peninsula

and certainly the Province as a whole. So, I see the positives. I expressed

those positives. Not that I wanted those people to go out there and just agree

with me. I just wanted to have a debate. I just wanted to present it and I did.

A lot of people did share in what I saw and I appreciate it.

I met with the council, and at the time it was kind of bad timing. We are

fortunate enough to have an FPI plant in Port au Choix, but unfortunately the

plant had to shut down the day I was there because there was no water in town.

So, you always have to take care of today's business today and worry about the

future when you get an opportunity, and that was the case there.

The council had gone and debated last night, had brought out the information

they had and had sized it up. In talking to the mayor this morning she said it

started off basically with a no. I think the concerns are too great. I think we

have something, and we have to look and stay where we are today because that

gives us a certain amount of security. Then that changed to a maybe, where there

is opportunity and you balance the two. Then, at the end of the night, they felt

that it was a yes, that we have to go for the opportunities. We cannot stay

here. We are just a shrimp plant now. We cannot grow anywhere else. We look at

the groundfish as it is being trucked out and we see those opportunities, but

understanding the bigger picture, the competition and world global, that the

opportunity to have the groundfish is not really relevant, or not really a good

opportunity there. The way to grow the town, the way to grow the business would

be to expand the shrimp industry and doing that to Europe - which is our biggest

market - was the way to go.

The council came back and said, in talking to the mayor this morning: we will

go with your wishes. You are here. You have an opportunity to have information

that we do not have, but we understand that if you vote yes we will certainly

take your backing. I appreciate them doing that because this is certainly a big

responsibility today when I stand to vote here.

The line that I heard most of all was from my neighbour here, that this a

debate about communities, all of our communities. This is not just an isolation

as FPI, that we are just one company, one thing. This is about our communities.

It is about rural Newfoundland. It is about the whole thing that we can put

ourselves in the place of Harbour Breton and see that you would be debating

something that would have a future, that did not include a certain group of

people, and that they would be left in the cold; they would be left behind and

not a part of our future.

For me, Mr. Speaker, when I got elected first, I came here and Black Duck

Cove had just lost its operator. The struggles that we had gone through and that

I had an opportunity to be with day in and day out, it was incredible to see the

highs and the lows, the despair, the hope and the whole thing. It gives you a

real sense to know from any time that you stand and vote on something that is

not directly to your district, that you know how low the lows can be. You can

see the people who are moving away, the communities are dying and the people are

at the food banks. Then, for me, in the struggles that we have gone through,

that it turned out fortunate for Black Duck Cove.

I spoke to one of the people that I had worked very closely with and she said

it was amazing to see someone, who two years ago did not know, basically, where

their next meal was coming from or how they were going to actually get to

Alberta, to be out purchasing a new vehicle and being able to take

part in a

life and the benefits that we have - for so many who take it for granted - to be

able to do that and see the change in attitude. For me, the responsibility and

seeing my colleague across the way and knowing the people that he represents, I

certainly would not want, in any way, to see them left out because I certainly

feel what it is.

I think the people here - and we all do, because our communities have been

affected. I do not think there are very many people who sit in this House who

have not had a neighbour - community, if not their own - who have not been

affected in a negative way through the changing in the fishery. As I said, the

opportunities that we had in Port au Choix was groundfish, it was shrimp, it was

whatever. We sought out the whole possibilities. Then we see where we would

shrink back to shrimp and we would see employment that was close to 600 down to

just over 100. We see where we would be narrowed in and then we would see where

the possibilities of that even becoming less as we saw truckload after truckload

of the fish product go by our door and the struggle to try to get a fair share

of that.

To see and understand those things, Mr. Speaker, is certainly a wealth of

information or a wealth of knowledge or a wealth of experience that we certainly

need as to get up there and to understand what we are doing today and how we

include all of our people in this because this Province is - we are here as a

whole and we must always look at it as a whole. As I say that, we also have to

see that we cannot take any one thing and solve all of our problems with it. We

have to see that this is the right way to move for this today and it will take

as many as we can and benefit as many as we can but we have to see other avenues

and other revenues.

I understand the problem is that when you go out of there. The many times

that I was offered option number two, option number two was nowhere in the

neighbourhood of what we had just lost. Sometimes I go back and say that it has

been suggested to me that we should try to get tee-shirts and put something on

it and compete with Hong Kong but it just was not acceptable. I think many ways

today when we go out there we are putting a bitter effort into our communities

and seeing that we are using all of our resources to bring them together to find

solutions, which to me is a far cry from some of the things that was suggested

to me on the Northern Peninsula as a community leader that would help my

community survive. It certainly was not acceptable.

Mr. Speaker, I feel that, as I said, it is all or nothing in a lot of our

communities. I certainly hope that is not the case with FPI, or any community

that FPI is in today. I certainly hope and pray that the decision we make today

will not leave the people I am responsible for voting for, in particular,

disappointed. I have no means of knowing for sure what five or six years down

the road will bring for me, but I hope and I look for every sign to make the

right decision.

I suppose, in conclusion, the council and the mayor, as I said, in the debate

they had last night, went from no to maybe to yes, and I have to agree with the

yes part of it, I think, in how I vote here today; because, if you see an

opportunity to make something and to bring value and to grow, you have to

believe that, where I see opportunity and growth and benefit, the people who are

exploiting the resource on our behalf as a people will see exactly what I am

seeing and will see the value in staying there and treating this resource and

this opportunity and what we offer them into the future.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I thank you for your time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to stand and make a few comments on what I believe to be

one of the most important debates that I have been involved in here in the House

of Assembly in the years I have been here, and we have had some very crucial

ones over those years.

Certainly, before I get into it, I would like to take a little walk down

memory lane, I think, in relation to my own District of Placentia & St. Mary's.

Back in the early 1990s, before I got into politics, there were ten fish plants

operating in my district at the time, stretching from Trepassey to Argentia.

Today, Mr. Speaker, there are two operating, so we have all felt what many

people in the Province are feeling today in regard to the fish plants and in

regard to the employment opportunities that came from those fish plants, and the

importance of the fishery to the people of the Province, and indeed not only in

rural Newfoundland, where we get caught up sometimes in talking about how

important the fishery is to rural Newfoundland, but indeed how important the

fishery is to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

That is why I say, Mr. Speaker, that today it is not an issue that we are

here to talk about in just the community of Harbour Breton. It is an issue of

the fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is an issue about the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador, and I think that is why this has evolved into the

important discussion that we are having here today.

Mr. Speaker, when we go trying to straighten out or trying to correct

problems in any industry in our Province, it is important that we get the

players to the table who are involved in that industry, that we get the players

to the table who have input into trying to fix the problem or trying to at least

alleviate some of the concerns that have been raised.

Over the past couple of weeks, and especially over the past couple of days,

we have heard of the people who have been at that table. We have heard of the

towns that have been involved, the different towns that have FPI plants, notably

the Town of Harbour Breton. We have heard tell of the FFAW being at the table,

and their having negotiations and discussions and playing a

part in that. We

have heard also that the company themselves, FPI, have been at the table and

been part of those discussions, and that over the past fourteen or fifteen

months, as I understand, the provincial government has been part of those

discussions.

I have to take the opportunity today - some people may find it somewhat

strange - to applaud the government on at least bringing those people together

at the table and putting what they believe to be the case forward now, as they

understand it, to be the best case for the fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador

as it relates to FPI. It is up to us, as members here in the House, over the

next twelve hours, or ten hours, or whatever is left in today's discussions

now, to decide on where we are going to go.

The big thing that I find very compelling and find very strange, to be honest

with you, is that, of all of the people who have been at the table here, and out

of all of the people who have been part of these discussions, there is one main

ingredient that seems to be missing, and it is very straightforward. That is the

federal government.

I, as a member here in the House, ask the question, when we look back on the

destruction of the fishery - and we all played a

part in that. Newfoundland and

Labrador played a

part in it, and many people involved in the fishing industry

played a part, but the main perpetrators of the destruction of the fishery in

Newfoundland and Labrador, as I see it, in my opinion, were the federal

government. They were the managers of the resource. They were the people who

were responsible for the allocations. They were the people who were responsible

for making sure that the industry was run properly. I feel that they fell by the

wayside and did not live up to their responsibility.

Now, when the provincial government and FPI and the FFAW and the towns that

are involved are sitting around the table and want someone else to be part of

the solution - because we have a problem. We all recognize that we have a

problem, but we are trying to find a solution to that problem. In trying to find

that solution, we reach out to the people who are involved, the people who have

been part of the problem, and we reach out to the federal government.

I heard the Premier, in questions that he was answering this morning, mention

Minister Stronach, Minister Regan and Minister McGuire, that he has had

discussions with in regard to income support, in regard to quotas, in regard to

finding a way to get some money from ACOA for business enterprises and so on. I

ask: Where are the commitments from the federal government?

They say you cannot be political, but we are all politicians. Where is the

regional minister for Newfoundland and Labrador on this issue? - a very

important issue to the people of this Province, not only the people of Harbour

Breton, I repeat, but to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Where is the

commitment from the federal government through our regional minister, through

the people who are involved?

We are here today discussing a future that we are all - none of us here can

look into a crystal ball and see what that future is, but we all have a part to

play in it, and I believe that the federal government has certainly shirked its

responsibility here, the federal ministers have shirked their responsibility

here, and I hope and pray before the day's end that somebody steps up to the

plate; because, as I said before, this is not about one town. This is not about

one area of the Province. This is about Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

I believe that the federal government owe the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador. I believe they owe the people of Harbour Breton and the Connaigre

Peninsula. I believe that FPI owe these people, and I believe that we owe these

people. We owe these people to step up to the plate and do what we can.

I believe all members here in the House of Assembly - and I have listened to

everybody on both sides of the House over the past day-and-a-half speak - I

believe that we are all signing out of the one hymn book, more or less, in most

cases. We all believe that there has to be something done, that we have to try

to find a solution, but we have to find that solution with all players at the

table.

Mr. Speaker, somewhere along the line there has been a major amount of fiscal

mismanagement here on FPI's part, in my view, for whatever reason. We ask

about the promises that have been made, that have been put forward in the past

couple of days, and the commitments to those promises, and the concerns that

have been raised by the communities of Bonavista and other communities that are

going to reap some benefits, hopefully, over the next couple of years. How

strong are those commitments? Where is the security for those commitments, Mr.

Speaker? Certainly these are questions that have been asked, and we ask the

question that somebody put forward this morning: What community is the next

Harbour Breton?

If we have a company that is going to go out now and sell an Income Trust and

raise money to further expand their businesses in the Province, is that going to

be enough at the end of the day? The money that is raised, is that going to be

enough to sustain these other communities, Mr. Speaker?

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, prior to my getting into politics in

1993, there were ten fish plants operating in my district. When you buy into the

Income Trust, are you buying into a building or are you buying into a product?

My belief is that they are buying into the product of fish. If we have a problem

with the resource now, we are going to have a problem maybe next year with

resource. Are we all going to sit down here and believe that all the resources

are going to come back and all of this is going to be straightened out in a few

years, and therefore the money that is being raised is going to be able to take

care of the concerns that are out there?

We have communities that are dying. We have communities that, each and every

day we hear - and I go back to the Town of Trepassey. I spoke to someone in

Trepassey last night. It went from a population of 1,500 people down to a

population of between 800 and 900 at the present time. Houses that are worth

$200,000 here in St. John's are worth $20,000 in Trepassey. Six hundred people

worked in the plant, several hundred people on draggers, providing all kinds of

opportunities for young and old alike, Mr. Speaker, and if you drive through

that town today, people are struggling to survive. There was a $7 million

diversification fund - I could be wrong on that - put in place in Trepassey to

help people out. I heard the former Mayor of Trepassey, on CBC radio a couple of

days ago, talking about the opportunities that have come from that

diversification fund, which created somewhere around 100 jobs, give or take.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, there are jobs there, but the fact is, it is a long ways from

where they were.

I believe that we all have a role to play here, that we all have to put up

and stand up and say: This is not about a community, this is about rural

Newfoundland and Labrador, it is about urban Newfoundland and Labrador, and it

is about the future of this Province, Mr. Speaker. I believe it is very

important that we sit down and try to come to terms with what we are doing here

today in relation to the future of the fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador. In

all sincerely, I think that we need to get the federal government involved with

this, right up to their necks, and have something on the table here from the

federal government, for the people of Harbour Breton in this particular case,

before we stand up to vote. If Harbour Breton is allowed to go by the wayside on

this issue today, my belief is there is going to be a standard set, a precedent

set, for the next Harbour Breton, wherever that community may be.

If they are allowed to do that today, allowed to say, here is $3 million,

whether it is FPI or someone else, Mr. Speaker - where is $3 million going? The

question is: Is $3 million going to be enough for Bonavista in two or three

years time? Is $3 million going to be enough for Fortune in two or three years

time? Is $3 million going to be enough for Port au Choix in two or three years

time? These are the questions that need to be asked. If they are allowed to move

on and turn their backs and go on up over the Connaigre Peninsula and forget

about Harbour Breton in this situation today, therefore they are going to do the

same thing over and over again.

Are we looking at a company, Mr. Speaker, in this case here, that is going to

be around in five or six years time? As we see it now - and we have heard it

through Question Period here which talked about the dilution of shares and the

fact that there is no commitment from the Icelanders on this situation - can

they come in and buy the 40 per cent, or pretty well the 40 per cent, and then

start moving in on the 60 per cent that is left, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker, in relation to other fish companies that are here in the

Province, most of the fish companies that are here, as I understand it, market

through the marketing arm of FPI in the United States. Yes, that has been

addressed, and the provincial government has addressed that concern here, Mr.

Speaker, but the question is the commitment. Is it strong enough? Is the

security strong enough? People have to reach a level of comfort with that.

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, we are here today in a very precarious

situation, for the simple reason that we have plans on the books here, Mr.

Speaker, for several communities in our Province that are going to, in a lot of

cases, help those communities survive. I will use the case of Bonavista. I

listened to the eloquent speech put forward by the member yesterday, Mr.

Speaker, as he worked in the fishing industry, the fish plant there in Bonavista,

and I have heard the people from there. Here we have a situation where these

people have a light at the end of their tunnel, Mr. Speaker. They have a light

at the end of their tunnel, but at the same time we have the Harbour Breton

situation over here that every member in this House, I believe, would like to

see a resolution to. Hopefully, at the end of the day, we will have something

for that.

That is the situation that we find ourselves in. We are all here, Mr.

Speaker, everybody is at the table, in regard to the people who are involved in

the negotiations. As I understand, from listening to the members opposite, for

over fourteen months the negotiations have been ongoing. The package has been

put forward to us as members of the House. At the same time, I want to

reiterate, Mr. Speaker, the fact that I believe there is something wrong with

the equation when the federal government is not a major player at this table,

when the ministers who are involved with this file, Mr. Speaker, at the Ottawa

level are not a major player at the table, when our own regional minister,

Minister Efford - I do not mind bringing anyone's name forward and the fact

that they are not part of this solution, Mr. Speaker, in trying to find a

solution to the problem that we find ourselves in.

I think if we had something that could give a level of comfort to the people

of Harbour Breton today - that level of comfort, I believe, cannot come from the

people in this House. It cannot come from the people opposite, in regard to the

government, Mr. Speaker, for the simple reason that: How much is enough. Is $10

million, $15 million, $50 million enough? At the end of the day the money will

run out, but the fact is, at the end of the day there are quotas involved and

only the federal government can decide who gets the quotas. We can all stand up

and support Harbour Breton in its quest for a quota, but the fact is the

decision to have that quota put in Harbour Breton is a decision of the federal

government, the federal minister and them alone. I think that is the important

issue that we find here today. As much as we all want to bring forward and

alleviate some of the concern at the Harbour Breton level, Mr. Speaker, the fact

is that it is really out of our hands. We can lobby and we can push forward that

concern but at the same time the decision rests with someone else.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, I guess, it comes down to - we look back,

we look at Gaultois, we look at Ramea, we look at Trepassey, we look at the past

and I guess it is wise sometimes to look back as we look forward. I think that

is where we are now in this regard, trying to figure out where the fishery of

Newfoundland and Labrador is going to be in five years time, where the flag ship

company, FPI, is going to be in five year's time, and how important that

company is to the other companies in Newfoundland and Labrador?

One of the members opposite spoke yesterday, quoting the words of Ches

Penney, who is involved with the fish company here in the Province, and

certainly involved in my district in buying fish product, Mr. Speaker, and how

important FPI is to that company in regards to their growth and expansion and

their survival over the next couple of years.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that as we go forward here today and we try to reach some

level of comfort, and certainly some security that can be put forward in

relation to dealing with the people from Harbour Breton - I do not think it is

only FPI that needs to step up the plate here. As I say, they have brought

forward some things, sure, and may bring forward some others, some dollars worth

and everything else that can be brought forward, but, at the same time, there

are other players involved here and, as other members have mentioned, it is all

not black and white. There is a lot of gray area here in relation to dealing

with this issue.

We have a company that is highly leveraged, as some people spoke about this

morning. At the same time, how far out on the limb can you go and survive? You

know, is the $75 million to $100 million that is going to be raised in the

Income Trust enough to keep this company alive and well in Newfoundland and

Labrador over the next couple of years, Mr. Speaker? Are the commitments that

have been made commitments that can be kept, in relation to the fact that, over

the next period of time, as the resource dwindles and we all have concerns with

the crab fishery and the amount of crab and the quotas that are coming for crab

and so on and so forth? The groundfish quota itself that they talked about is

worth a certain amount of dollars today. It could be worth a certain amount of

dollars a few years down the road.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, in all sincerity, that everybody who has been at the

table, in relation this issue so far, has put their best foot forward. That

includes the FFAW, the people who are involved from the union perspective at the

plants, the towns that have been involved, the provincial government that has

been involved, and indeed, anybody else who has played a

part in bringing us

here today.

The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that the federal government needs to step up to the

plate. We have a few hours left in this day before we take a vote here.

Hopefully, as the day progresses, we have some movement from the federal

government, not a promise of dealing with something two or three months down the

road, but a commitment that can be made here in this Province today. I call on

all federal members of Newfoundland and Labrador, on both sides of the House of

Commons, I call on our regional minister here today, Mr. Efford, I call on the

different ministers who have been involved in negotiations, to make sure that

before we end up here today we have a commitment from the federal government,

not only to the people of Harbour Breton but, indeed, to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador. I believe only by having that commitment can we move

forward on this today in a way that is, at least, comfortable to the people of

the Province, at least gives us some reassurance and, at the end of the day,

some hope.

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned earlier about the time I represented the Town of

Trepassey, in the ensuing years after their plant shut down, and I can only

visualize what is going to happen in Harbour Breton over the next couple of

years as the U-Hauls move in and people pack up and leave and the town begins to

die. I think that it is a collective responsibility on us all here in the House

of Assembly, and indeed all of the people of the Province.

I reiterate and finish up with this comment, Mr. Speaker. I reiterate the

importance of having the federal government, and a strong commitment from the

federal government, as part of the equation to have a solution to the problem

that we face. I think, regardless of who is involved, what parties are involved,

the fact is that unless the federal government steps up to the plate before this

day is out and plays an important

part in the decision that we are trying to

make here today, this is only detrimental to the people of Harbour Breton, this

will be detrimental to the fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak on this bill before we vote

on it. Even though my district is not affected by it in any material way, I find

that I am passing judgement on a bill that will have an effect on other

communities in our Province.

This is not the first free vote that I have taken

part in. I do not know how

many votes there have been, but about twenty-five years ago I found myself

standing against my party on the flag issue. I believe the only person here who

participated in that vote was the Member for Lewisporte.

While my district has not been affected, in that Fishery Products

International is not a player in the area that I represent, there is a

relationship, as was pointed out to me by my friend, the Mayor of Harbour

Breton, Don Stewart, yesterday. There is a relationship between Port au Port and

Harbour Breton in that, during Commission of Government, I think, in the 1930s,

the people of Sagona Island were transferred to the Port au Port Peninsula, to a

place called Clam Bank Cove. They came up there the first summer, they built

their homes, and then the families came back the next summer and the community

has been there ever since. It is now known under the name of Lourdes in my

district. There are a lot of people who still go back to Harbour Breton, and

still have close ties with Harbour Breton, and no doubt are following this

debate.

Mr. Speaker, not only that, but from 1992 - I left politics in 1993 and came

back in 2003, and the district which I had represented had been affected by the

moratorium. The fish plant that was in the district, which has been run by

National Sea, later had been run by the Pike company, and after that some

Americans. It then became a plastic plant, and now is an empty building.

During that time, changes happened in the district and the young people have

left. Most people who live in that area of the district - that is the Port au

Port Peninsula - a lot of them are seasonal workers who work on the mainland and

come back. The economy is in tatters. I guess that was one tragedy that happened

in this Province, and Harbour Breton is our latest tragedy.

The Island was founded on the fishery and it has been managed ever since. Our

fishery has been managed ever since by the federal government, since we came

into Confederation in 1949. I have always said that we could do better

ourselves. I believe that the federal government owes a great debt to

Newfoundland.

I had the occasion at one time to visit Iceland, and I was totally amazed

that a country with the same population as Newfoundland, with less resources but

a comparable fishery - I believe ours is larger - has been able, on their own,

to do what they have done in their country. I believe that the federal

government has not managed our fishery well, and I think they owe something to

Harbour Breton. I think, as well, that the same should go for the Harbour

Bretons of this country and the fishermen of this Province as for the farmers of

Saskatchewan or the cattlemen of Alberta.

Mr. Speaker, we live in a strange time. The other side of the coin is that,

in the past ten years, globalization has occurred. There are two sides to this

bill. In this area of globalization, there is no doubt that any company that is

trying to do business in the world must have the ability to be able to work in

all countries. I heard the Member for Burin last night say that salmon from Peru

were being processed in Fortune.

Mr. Speaker, when I left politics in 1993, as a member here in this

Legislature, there were no computers in the members' offices. Nobody used

e-mail; letters were the norm. There was a fax machine. One time I was dealing

with a company on the mainland and the fax machine was in the Premier's

office. I was not sure how it worked, and I couldn't tell my secretary how it

happened. I come back ten years later and here we are. So, companies must be

mobile; it is a different world. Today, we have to depend on the satellite to

broadcast the words that are being spoken here.

Mr. Speaker, there is a human side of globalization, and that is the fact

that we tear jobs out of our communities and they go to the other side of the

world, which is good for them, where there are people w